In an academic essay of not less than 700 words, compare how the imperialistic practices of the 18th century are displayed in Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver Travel’s.

     Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels are two of the most iconic works in English literature, each offering unique insights into the human condition through the adventures of their protagonists. Crusoe’s journey, a tale of survival and self-reliance on a deserted island, contrasts sharply with the satirical exploration of human nature in Gulliver's Travels, where Lemuel Gulliver serves as a naïve observer of bizarre societies. While these novels differ in tone and narrative, they share common themes that reflect the social and political issues of their time. Both Crusoe and Gulliver, as travelers, embody the complexities of imperialism, societal norms, and moral ambiguity. Their interactions with foreign lands and cultures not only critique the exploitation of others but also reveal the flaws in the imperialistic practices of their respective eras. Through an examination of their characterizations, their representation of imperialism, and their treatment of immoral practices, Defoe and Swift use their protagonists to challenge and critique the values of their time and explore the deeper moral implications of their actions.

     The imperialistic practices of the 18th century are embodied through the indirect characterization of both protagonists. Defoe and Swift portray their mindset as an imperialistic mindset of their age, though in different ways. On one hand, as a typical Englishman in the 18th century, Crouse’s desire to explore the world is derived from the interests of his age that serve the imperialistic practices. Britain was a rising empire seeking profits everywhere, and being an explorer was one way of employing imperialistic practices. Moreover, superiority is one of the characteristics that distinguishes the imperialistic mindset, and Crouse, as an imperialistic figure, is superior, as he thinks he is the master of the island. This is clear in his word choice that describes himself and his cave; for example, “lord of the island,” “king,” and “my castle,” which denotes a prideful tone. Crouse’s unjustified acts, which are similar to the imperialistic ones of domesticating and killing animals, is another example of the sense of superiority he lacks and wants to fulfil. Crusoe wants to feel a sense of control, and this is also why he chooses to make scarecrows by killing birds and hanging them. This sense of superiority can be further clear in the use of situational irony in the footprint scene. Although Crouse lacks combination, seeing a footprint on the island frightens him because it threatens his position as king in his “little kingdom,” which reflects the imperialistic fears. On the other hand, Swift portrays Gulliver as an imperial explorer to criticize and attack the hegemonic and imperialistic practices of Britain at that time, as mentioned earlier. His multiple voyages reflect the imperialistic practices of exploration, as Gulliver is portrayed as a superior to embody imperialistic practices. However, his superiority is underestimated by swift through the ironical shift from a giant in Lilliput to a mere pigeon in Brobdingnag. This is well-manifested through the use of animal-related words, such as “animal,” “scratch,” and “bite.” In addition, Gulliver reveals another imperialistic trait, affecting his practices; he shows confidence, which stems from his moral blindness. This is demonstrated in his confrontation with the king of Brobdingnag, which seems to be a civilization mission, for Gulliver tends to glorify the colonial achievements. However, Swift scornfully satirizes the moral righteousness of the imperialistic mindset to practice such acts by using situational irony employed in the discrepancy of the boastful tone of Gulliver and the abusive tone of the king, appearing through the contrasting diction, as evident in “the mistress of Arts and Arms,” “betray,” “cheat,” and “fit of laughing”. Gulliver’s words arouse disgust instead of astonishment for the king. This is how Crusoe’s and Gulliver’s imperialistic mindset play a role in justifying their imperialistic practices.

    Exploitation is the key instrument in advancing the imperialistic practices which are illustrated in both novels through many examples. Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe highlights how Looping is disguised as trading through the contrast between what he desires and what he does. Although discovering the world is his desire, Crusoe’s actions reflect colonialist ideology, as he attempts to exploit the native inhabitants. This is clear when Crusoe arrives at Brazil and settles as a planter, treating the foreign land as his own plantation, conquering and working industriously on it as other Europeans. In addition, Crouse isn’t only involved in economic exploitation but also in labor exploitation. In order to expand his plantation, Crusoe is willing to go on a trip to enslave negroes in Guinea. This is demonstrated in his detached tone when considering such a practice, as evident “This was a fair proposal.” Furthermore, Crusoe appears as a conqueror through his colonizing practices in the island. This can be clarified through the juxtaposition between his attitude from subduing to taming nature. He exploits every resource to his favor by upsetting the natural order of the island. However, Swift implies a criticism of imperialism in Gulliver’s Travels by shedding light on the political exploitation. Swift wants to criticize how rulers exploit their allies before turning against them. To clarify, being portrayed as a naive and submissive character, Gulliver is a tool for the emperor, satisfying his needs of winning the war. The submissive manner of Gulliver is indicated through his exaggerated reaction when describing the Lilliputian, as evidence “Men of war,” which denotes a respective tone. However, the emperor turns against him for his dissatisfaction with Gulliver’s refusal to meet his imperialistic needs. This is clarified in the contrasting shift of the emperor’s attitude toward Gulliver; after calling him “great of war” and giving him the title of “Nardac,” he disputes with him. In volume two, Swift highlights the economic exploitation that reflects the imperialistic attitude of that time. The farmer shows Gulliver kindness; however, he exploits him physically and morally by understating his role as a source of gaining money. Employing the passive voice of Gulliver, such as “I was shown” and “I was placed” denotes a tone of self-pity since he is a mere spectacle. Swift puts Gulliver under the shoes of being conquered by reversing his imperialistic role to give the readers a closer perspective to the ugly face of exploitation that is disguised under the guise of civilization. 

    Both Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver’s Travels present immoral practices that expose serious ethical dilemmas related to imperialism. Racism and dehumanization are one of the moral dilemmas, resulting from imperialistic ambitions. In Robinson Crusoe, Defoe sheds light on how the natives are treated in a dehumanizing way by the British. This is crystal clear in the word choice Crusoe uses to describe the natives of Africa. He repeatedly refers to them as “savages,” a term that reflects a colonial mindset aimed at dehumanizing others to justify domination. These immoral problems lead to normalizing immoral imperialistic practices, such as slave trading. Crouse’s involvement in the slave trade, especially his willingness to sell Xury despite the boy’s loyalty, reveals the exploitative nature of imperial economics. This is ironic since he himself experiences being a slave. Moreover, Crusoe even considers attacking the natives without cause, but admits that such violence would be unjustifiable, exposing the internal conflict between moral reasoning and imperial ambition.  He presents the indigenous people as cannibals, which indicates he is highly affected by the British beliefs of cannibalism that they make up to serve the imperialistic ambitions and to justify their acts of slavery and dominance. Similarly, in Gulliver’s Travels, Swift highlights the practices that the British people don't question, resulting in ethical dilemmas, such as violence. Gulliver’s offering gunpowder to the King of Brobdingnag symbolizes how European powers used military technology to control and intimidate others. Swift here directly attacks the destructive application of science through the ironical response of the king, using invective technique. The king’s refusal, based on ethical and humanitarian grounds, sharply contrasts with the imperial mindset of Gulliver, for he considers Europeans as morally inferior. This is well manifested in the choice of words that arouse a mode of shock to the readers; for example, “Horror” and “inhumane ideas.” In addition, the political favoritism shown in the court scene reflects how corruption is used to serve personal interests rather than justice since “entertainment” is the criteria that should exist in a person to be qualified. Swift employs the court setting, which is a parody of the English court, as a circus to make the reader reflect this absurd atmosphere on the kind of life they live.

     In conclusion, both Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver’s Travels serve as powerful literary critiques of the imperialistic ideologies that dominated the 18th century. Through Crusoe’s self-fashioned dominion over his island and Gulliver’s shifting roles in foreign societies, Defoe and Swift expose the deep-rooted sense of superiority, exploitation, and moral ambiguity in imperialist practices. While Defoe presents a more straightforward portrayal of colonial ambition, Swift employs satire to question the ethical justifications behind such endeavors. Together, these works compel readers to confront the dehumanizing effects of empire and reflect on the lasting impact of these historical attitudes on contemporary notions of power, morality, and cultural identity.